The Cartographers’ Guild is a forum created by and for map makers and aficionados, a place where every aspect of cartography can be admired, examined, learned, and discussed. Our membership consists of professional designers and artists, hobbyists, and amateurs—all are welcome to join and participate in the quest for cartographic skill and knowledge.

Although we specialize in maps of fictional realms, as commonly used in both novels and games (both tabletop and role-playing), many Guild members are also proficient in historical and contemporary maps. Likewise, we specialize in computer-assisted cartography (such as with GIMP, Adobe apps, Campaign Cartographer, Dundjinni, etc.), although many members here also have interest in maps drafted by hand.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. You will have to register before you can post or view full size images in the forums.

I have no ideas as to what could be missing, sci-fi is not my area of expertise. But, you are right, it does seem to be missing something...not big just something small. I think it looks pretty good, though.

If the radiance of a thousand suns was to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...I am become Death, the Shatterer of worlds.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer (father of the atom bomb) alluding to The Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 11, Verse 32)

I've been looking at this on and off for a few hours, and still feel it's definitely missing something, but I'm not entirely sure what, yet, either.

Part of the ship carrying the camera on the edge of the view somewhere, perhaps? Or another ship in the view?

I think the problem might lie in that gap between the nebula and the top left corner-thingy around the planet, but I'm not wholly sure.

...
Actually, I take that back. I just looked at it again, and I think the amount of stuff is just right. Try bringing the opacity of the grid down as low as you can without losing sight of it. Basically to the point where it's still clearly visible, but that your eyes are drawn first to the planets.

Space is often empty; highlight that. Silence can be music and emptiness can be art, too.

You could include an inset screen, maybe somewhere top left, with scrolled data, or an alternate projection (a 'concentric circles' system layout map, for example) or a 'radar sweep' panel.

A nitpick would be that you'll never get all those planets (and stars!) visible together. Space is huge. If you had one on screen, the others would be pinpoints - unless they were moons of the main planet. But I'm a scientist and an artistic philistine, so just ignore me!

A "real" spacecraft's display would be highly processed in order to show whatever is important to the viewer. The on-screen sizes of the objects wouldn't necessarily be proportional to their physical sizes, for example. I think some kind of (textual?) scale information is needed to clarify this.

This could be a display showing the planets of a three-star system.

One thing that's missing is the orbital paths. I'd expect the display to include elliptical lines showing how the stars and planets travel around one another.

Moons are missing, too.

The thing that's bothering me the most is the illumination of the planets. If the images are supposed to be magnified real-time views of the planets as seen by the spacecraft, then the planets that are on the far sides of their respective suns would be gibbous (more than half illuminated) while the planets that are on the near sides of their suns would be showing only crescents. Also, the illuminated sides should be pointing toward the stars that they're orbiting, with the centers of the crescents pointed directly toward their sun's center. They shouldn't all be pointing in the same direction.

Here's an example of what I mean, although with only two stars:

(This thumbnail links to a much larger image. The picture was created using Celestia.)

A nitpick would be that you'll never get all those planets (and stars!) visible together. Space is huge. If you had one on screen, the others would be pinpoints

I think this is more than a nitpick. I think it nails what's "wrong" with this image (which does not seem to be a map of any sort, btw). The arrangement of the planets makes no sense. It's an impossible real view ... and if it is an abstract representation of the planets, with realistic enlarged images placed in some sort of pattern for the sake of information display, then the pattern makes no sense.

I also wonder about the double-lines overlay on the largest planet. Is that some kind of surface feature? It seems not to conform with the globe in any way I'd expect (like following latitude & longitude).

It is very pretty, though. But it's confusing. I don't know what this is.

A "real" spacecraft's display would be highly processed in order to show whatever is important to the viewer. The on-screen sizes of the objects wouldn't necessarily be proportional to their physical sizes, for example. I think some kind of (textual?) scale information is needed to clarify this.